The dust still hasn't settled over the controversy surrounding Facebook and its Beacon ad-tracking program. Industry observers are falling all over themselves commenting on the company's misfortunes -- one columnist says Facebook has gone beyond "jumping the shark" and is now being devoured by it.
We're hearing a lot about innovation these days. And we're going to hear a whole lot more, as audiences click their way to a more immediate, individual, and impatient online media experience. Publishers will need to measure up to a two-tiered expectation -- outside and inside -- that's a cut above convention.
Internet advertising spending is bloated -- post-Thanksgiving-dinner, can't-button-the-top button, bloated. I am not referring to the projections that have global online ad spending exceeding $35 billion in 2008, nor the Web usage driving this advertising interest. I am not suggesting the power of online advertising is overstated. What I am saying is that Internet ad spending is grossly inflated because of the way the inventory is bought and sold.
With all the talk about how major publishers can differentiate in this rapidly evolving content and advertising landscape, the single most overlooked factor is client service. The best content, inventory, rates, ad models, targeting and measurement all can be undone in an instant by a missing rep. And it's happening all the time...
As reported in David Verklin's book ("Watch This, Listen Up, Click Here"), most magazine reading takes place during the work week. But after reading and sending emails all day, our collective eyes are pooped. And is it me or have the font sizes in magazines been reduced over the years? Is it possible tired eyes, combined with the inability to dynamically adjust the font size, are negatively affecting the popularity of magazine-reading? Whether you agree with this theory or not, there is no denying magazines are in real danger.